I was showing the lack of freedom in the unborn. As I have already acknowledged, the unborn are being forced into existence, but in the alternative the unborn are being forced not to exist. In the former, the unborn would end up with more freedom overall. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't think this is looking at it accurately. The alternative is NOT being forced to not exist, as in that scenario there is no "one" to not exist. In fact, there is no one "missing out" on the game by not existing. This goes back to that asymmetry. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with "missed game" to anyone who doesn't exist. What "force" or "bad" is happening to anyone? What is a factual state of affairs, is no person will be forced, and that is where the issue lies.

Can't procreating another person into the world, be considered this? — schopenhauer1

Certainly, if it is done with the purpose of having fun! But we don't know that. We actually don't know under what circumstances (decisions, conditions, etc.) birth takes place,

BTW, to the question "Is life a joke?", I use to reply, "Not only it's a joke, it's a bad joke!"
(But in fact, we don't know who makes that joke and if he laughs! :smile:)

There is no will to substitute. There is no person to force. We might look upon our birth with regret and sorrow and lament our parent’s decision, but it is all retroactive. Looking at it, there is no act in conception, pregnancy and birth that should have required our consent, whereas in your evil demon scenario there is.

Besides, parents merely set the conditions within which pregnancy might occur. The worst that could be said of them is that they had intercourse. Your genetic material travelled, fertilized, and formed by its own efforts. You threw yourself in the game.

There is no person to force. — NOS4A2

When someone is born, this is the force. No "one" needs to be there prior. Imagine if the situation was someone put in extremely dire circumstances. Just because at time X they didn't exist, doesn't mean it is okay to then put them in situation Y.

Looking at it, there is no act in conception, pregnancy and birth that should have required our consent, whereas in your evil demon scenario there is. — NOS4A2

It just makes no sense that moral actions that affect people make no difference as long as the person doesn't exist at time X. Again, makes no sense.

Your genetic material travelled, fertilized, and formed by its own efforts. You threw yourself in the game. — NOS4A2

Not by itself. Now you are debating a weird version of causation. Someone presses a trigger and it was the combustion that did the work.

It may be weird and cheeky but it at least considers extant things and activities, and isn’t a false analogy like pulling the trigger of a gun. The sperm travels to the ovary by flagellating its tail. It breaks through the ovary wall. It fertilizes the egg. It becomes a zygote, a fetus, a newborn, and so on. The only way a parent might stop the efforts of your genetic material is to intervene, or otherwise “force” it to stop without any consideration of the consent of those involved, no?

Anyways, it makes sense to me that “moral actions that affect [a person] make no difference as long as the person doesn't exist at time X” simply because there is no person to affect with the moral action. I just cannot follow your reasoning when I can see your conclusion in the premises. It becomes difficult to follow when these thought experiments always treat nothings as somethings, potential people as people, possible scenarios as extant ones. Would your evil villain be guilty of forcing someone into a game if there was no man to nab from the couch? if there was no one to force? Conversely, are the parents guilty of not seeking consent when there is no one to seek consent from? I don’t see how they can.

The only way a parent might stop the efforts of your genetic material is to intervene, or otherwise “force” it to stop without any consideration of the consent of those involved, no? — NOS4A2

None of this is relevant. The agency is the parents, not proto-genetic material. What "caused" this sequence of events to take place. It is like the trigger.

Anyways, it makes sense to me that “moral actions that affect [a person] make no difference as long as the person doesn't exist at time X” simply because there is no person to affect with the moral action. — NOS4A2

Would circumstances change if the birth was in clearly bad circumstances or situations? The baby was absolutely going to born into a lava pit and consumed by the lava, let's say. This isn't relevant, right? Cause there was no person at point X prior. But that makes no sense.

t becomes difficult to follow when these thought experiments always treat nothings as somethings, potential people as people, possible scenarios as extant ones. Would your evil villain be guilty of forcing someone into a game if there was no man to nab from the couch? if there was no one to force? Conversely, are the parents guilty of not seeking consent when there is no one to seek consent from? I don’t see how they can. — NOS4A2

Right, so when there can be no consent, who is being harmed by not having the child? Yet someone would (at the least be) forced by having them.

Parents do not control the activity of the spermatozoa, ovum, and their subsequent forms. Surely they can affect gestation, but they cannot make gestation occur through will alone.

Well yes it is immoral to birth your baby into a lava pit.

No one is being harmed by not having a child just as no one is being harmed by having one.

Well yes it is immoral to birth your baby into a lava pit. — NOS4A2

Why should that matter? According to your logic, if the person didn't exist at time X, then it doesn't matter the outcome at time Y?

A newborn does exist.

Yes it does, but someone just doesn't get to a lava pit by itself. Someone had to arrange that before hand.. Let's say the intent was there, and you had the ability to stop them from doing so. You actually changed the arrangement so that it led to a hospital. Did you actually affect anyone? Surely your logic would say you did nothing for no one, right?

I don’t get it. Am I stopping someone from giving birth into a lava pit?

I was showing the lack of freedom in the unborn. As I have already acknowledged, the unborn are being forced into existence, but in the alternative the unborn are being forced not to exist. In the former, the unborn would end up with more freedom overall. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't think this is looking at it accurately. The alternative is NOT being forced to not exist, as in that scenario there is no "one" to not exist. In fact, there is no one "missing out" on the game by not existing. This goes back to that asymmetry. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with "missed game" to anyone who doesn't exist. What "force" or "bad" is happening to anyone? What is a factual state of affairs, is no person will be forced, and that is where the issue lies. — schopenhauer1

Bloody asymmetry! :lol:

Would you say the violation occurs, with the act that gives rise to a birth, or the birth itself? And an example demonstrating violating the rights of the not yet existent is planting a bomb that will kill a future generation (that hasn't been born yet), but their right to life (when they have been born) etc will have been violated?

And an example demonstrating violating the rights of the not yet existent is planting a bomb that will kill a future generation (that hasn't been born yet), but their right to life (when they have been born) etc will have been violated? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Right, there is a way that preventing the planting of a bomb that would hurt a future person(s) is "good", even if there was no person alive to be aware that there was a prevention of this terrible thing that could have affected them.

And that would be a fair point for the first generation of victims. But the ones that follow later, say the 5th or 7th generation would not have the slightest idea that this is an inescapable game and that they are in fact victims of false play. Eventually, the truth of their reality would be forgotten or be credited as fiction or a legend. No one would actually believe that their lives were in fact coerced.
Going with evidence, it’d be safe to assume that anyone who believes otherwise would be considered either a conspiracy theorist or a rather mentally unstable person. Hence your justification holds good only for the early generations. We could go as far to say that there is a possibility that our reality is a simulated one and that either it has gotten lost in history or that it is considered a legend.

Right, there is a way that preventing the planting of a bomb that would hurt a future person(s) is "good", even if there was no person alive to be aware that there was a prevention of this terrible thing that could have affected them. — schopenhauer1

Makes sense to me.

Interesting sci-fi spin on it. However, let me bring it back to the main point.. What is it about forcing people to play a game, with various obstacles to overcome, that seems wrong. KEEP IN MIND though, I am not talking about games which strengthen oneself in the present to bring about a better future state (like vaccines, schooling, self defense, etc.).. But rather, in this case, one doesn't have to play the game in the first place. There was no person beforehand to need to have a better future state. This would purely be creating someone in order that they experience the obstacle course. Independently of whether the player (new person) might eventually identify with the obstacles and report that they "like the game", something seems off here. Maybe you can help me point out the "wrong" in creating unnecessary obstacles for others (independent of their post-facto reports of liking the game). I am thinking there is something wrong with the paternalistic political assumption that people need to overcome obstacles for no reason other than they want to see it happen.

@Down The Rabbit Hole What do you think? What is it that seems to be unjust here that I am not quite verbalizing other than "paternalistic unnecessary harm".. Is there something else that can describe this unnecessary creation of the obstacle course for another, and deeming it "good" because YOU want to see this take place for another person? It starts to become a political decision. You want to see an agenda enacted of game playing.. This isn't innocently defending yourself by saying, "Oh well, we need to provide obstacles to prevent even greater obstacles".. This is creating all obstacles in the first place.

@Bitter Crank Maybe you can bring to bear some of your down-to-earth perspective on this.

Right, there is a way that preventing the planting of a bomb that would hurt a future person(s) is "good", even if there was no person alive to be aware that there was a prevention of this terrible thing that could have affected them.

Preventing the planting of a bomb is good. But you’d be saving no one if those potential victims were never born.

Preventing the planting of a bomb is good. But you’d be saving no one if those potential victims were never born. — NOS4A2

Right, but there is some way that this state of affairs is good or better than the other.

Yes.

Well, that would be a fair point considering the fact that initially they did not have to nor want to enter this game of obstacles and unnecessary challenges. But would it particularly matter later? Now, the paternalistic political assumption that people need to overcome obstacles for no other reason than to see it happen is quite an interesting perspective. And I must say that those assumptions are albeit futile but they have been built into the core of our society.
But that begs a question that needs to be addressed before further discussion, what are the arbitrary rules of the society and who gets to decide just and unjust?
I might consider Socrates to be a wise man with much to contribute but the people of Athens disagreed and considered his intellectual tidbits to be unjust and venomous. What precisely is justified in the world? The world is a purely subjective with multiple contradictory perspectives and that is something that needs to be taken into account in this discussion.

Yes. — NOS4A2

And this is the basis of the asymmetry.

What do you think? What is it that seems to be unjust here that I am not quite verbalizing other than "paternalistic unnecessary harm".. Is there something else that can describe this unnecessary creation of the obstacle course for another, and deeming it "good" because YOU want to see this take place for another person? It starts to become a political decision. You want to see an agenda enacted of game playing.. This isn't innocently defending yourself by saying, "Oh well, we need to provide obstacles to prevent even greater obstacles".. This is creating all obstacles in the first place. — schopenhauer1

It makes perfect sense that doing something now to affect a future person (such as planting a bomb to kill them or having sex and forcing them to be alive) can be unethical. Though it doesn't feel right to me to say that it's okay to force non-existence, but it's wrong to force a happy existence, based solely on the fact that in the latter case someone will exist.

I'm stuck with one argument - that the lives of suffering (even 3% of the population is hundreds of millions) are not a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer. I guess this argument is just part of your collection?

Well, that would be a fair point considering the fact that initially they did not have to nor want to enter this game of obstacles and unnecessary challenges. But would it particularly matter later? Now, the paternalistic political assumption that people need to overcome obstacles for no other reason than to see it happen is quite an interesting perspective. And I must say that those assumptions are albeit futile but they have been built into the core of our society.
But that begs a question that needs to be addressed before further discussion, what are the arbitrary rules of the society and who gets to decide just and unjust?
I might consider Socrates to be a wise man with much to contribute but the people of Athens disagreed and considered his intellectual tidbits to be unjust and venomous. What precisely is justified in the world? The world is a purely subjective with multiple contradictory perspectives and that is something that needs to be taken into account in this discussion. — TheSoundConspirator

There could be an argument made that not procreating is the most just because there could never be something enacted upon someone else unnecessarily and/or harmful or paternalistic. When someone is born all these things will befall that person. Thus the logic always tends to the "not procreate" as the collateral damage/unnecessary damage is never put forth. A political agenda on someone else's behalf is NOT happening, where it would be if one did go ahead and enacted it.

I'll sum this up this way:
Making someone go through an obstacle course of varying degrees of harm is not good. Even if post-facto, people might go along with it because it's all they know, or would say, they "like" or "don't mind" it, this political agenda of making people have to play a game is wrong due to the harms that could have been avoided.

With this idea comes the fact that the universe is not being "edified" by people playing a game. In other words, I can imagine a response being that, playing games is just intrinsically good and MUST happen. The universe would be worse without it. That is ridiculous. The rings of Saturn, the stars in Alpha Centuri and the rest don't give a damn about people playing the game or not playing the game. Nothing loses out on anything.

Also keep in mind that no person is in non-existence prior to birth crying about not playing the game. What matters is the game was not enacted for someone else, with it's intendant harms.

With all of this comes the more basic notion that there seems to be something that is not using people by not creating them and paternalistically making them play a game. In the grand scheme, there is no "good for someone" or "not good for someone", when considering the procreation decision, simply creating someone who will be affected (and harmed) and not creating that. The "not creating someone who will be affected (and harmed) is not using people in any fashion. It is more deontologically sound.

I'm stuck with one argument - that the lives of suffering (even 3% of the population is hundreds of millions) are not a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer. I guess this argument is just part of your collection? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I could take the easy route and say, that this is correct that using any person for a majority is wrong.. Especially when it comes to harming that person. While this is true, the more difficult case though that I am laying out is enacting any agenda that makes someone play a game is using them.. Especially if that game has known and contingent harms that cannot be avoided, are unnecessary for them to play in the first place, and practically inescapable (suicide is really not the same as not playing in the first place).

I think, that's an interesting comparison. However in our lives the frame, network, or game is made by us, once we take into consideration the external conditionals are delimiting our own social frame development. Besides the frame or called by you game, seems to be developing by its own itself. We seems to be just cells and nobody has a real grip or influence over it. The "bugg" drives the things by its own.

I think, that's an interesting comparison. However in our lives the frame, network, or game is made by us, once we take into consideration the external conditionals are delimiting our own social frame development. Besides the frame or called by you game, seems to be developing by its own itself. We seems to be just cells and nobody has a real grip or influence over it. The "bugg" drives the things by its own. — Santiago

Not sure about this. People make the decision. Things aren't brought into existence by simply "external forced" doing it on their own.

Yes the people's are indeed taking desicions. However our perception of the situation is really limited. The things are also done by the group, that is framing our perception and capacity to take desicions. We are actually getting like a fungus. That is thinking by its own. The cells aren't taking the led by their own beyond their perception of their immediate surrounding and necessities, but the fungus is leading the group by its own besides it doesn't have brain.

The things are also done by the group, that is framing our perception and capacity to take desicions. We are actually getting like a fungus. That is thinking by its own. The cells aren't taking the led by their own beyond their perception of their immediate surrounding and necessities, but the fungus is leading the group by its own besides it doesn't have brain. — Santiago

I think you might be taking that metaphor too literally. To the extent that we are using "group think" I think you are correct. We often nag each other and pressure each other into decisions based on cultural norms. Raising a baby becomes a signal and signifier. It becomes a totem. It becomes simply a way to pass the time for 20 years or so for many people. Its an accident that people rationalize (or have no way of getting rid of in some areas). However, what is the case is it is up to the human agent and they can make a choice not to create a new person, and the prevent intendent consequence of doing so for that person. In other words, it's not inevitable.

I think you rigth is quite inevitable. I took the decision to be alone ten years ago, due to our grim prespective as specie and I think is a difficult desicion, due to the cultural facts exposed by you as well as the biological ones as the mammals as we are and because I kind of regret to do not share what I learned in this life with my offspring. For those could handle the things better than me and to generate continuity. However yes I took myself that desicion of do not being here another person.

@Down The Rabbit Hole @TheSoundConspirator
So I'm trying to develop the idea of more than just the "collateral damage" of the minority who view it as such. Rather I am trying to show how reality is limited in enough ways that it really is a "limited" game.

Forced Situations of Real:
-Technology/ science follows only certain principles. We cannot just create things from fiat. Rather, it is a truism that science must follow these principles that we are bound to.

-Survival requires cooperative effort. Economic activity requires interactions we may not want to do if we had the option not to do it.

-Forced power relations. With that economic activity, you need people who tell others what to do and when to do it and make sure the "ship is running". This creates power hierarchies and dynamics. Ones we would not want to deal with if there was another choice. This happens anywhere from anarcho-communes to business orgs.. It's just how things work (not to say that it is good though).

-Throwness of already existing systems from historical contingency. Our political/economic/social structures may not be what we would want it to be otherwise, but we deal with them because one cannot easily start anew.

Again, if these Forced Situations of the Real are inescapable (mostly), how would putting more people knowingly in these structures NOT a political agenda?

Structures of Control:
- Personal habits of shame, guilt, anxiety are instilled to internally control behavior.
-External cajoling, shaming from peers (social psychology) to get people to do what they wouldn't want otherwise.
-Firings, threats of excommunication and becoming an outcast from the system
-jobs not easy to get, lag time for employment (labor markets aren't perfect representations of what we want, just what is available).
-Not all jobs are known or advertised (again non-perfect labor markets)

Post-Modernism Has Wrong Assumptions, Rather:
-One cannot escape these situations of "the real" and "throwness"
-There are NOT infinite amounts of options
-One must accept the real and embrace it or "leave the game"

A very thought-provoking perspective on the human condition. Makes me wonder if there really is an actual villain orchestrating the whole thing, running the shitshow that we call life. God as the evil genius/mastermind calling the shots: Dystheism. The idea itself doesn't seem to be new but the antinatalist spin, perhaps your goal here, is definitely novel as far as I can tell. Nice!

I suppose people being ok with the arrangement, the deal they have with life (long periods of discomfort interrupted by fleeting moments of mediocre contentment), isn't because there's anything great about it but is actually for the reason that, just as a slave ultimately begins to get accustomed to his condition, we've gotten used to it (the misery). There's a big difference between getting what you want and being happy with what you have. There's even a whole host of quotes that contain the phrase, "be happy with what you have", a clear signal indeed that you've hit the nail on the head in a manner of speaking.

Some might object to your thesis but those who do need to take the red pill.

There's this story about how young elephants are tied to a stake (to prevent them from escaping) with strong iron shackles. This then goes on for a good part of the young elephant's life, in the process the elephant realizes there's no point in trying to break the iron chain and stops trying to escape.

At this point, the iron shackles are replaced with a simple rope. The elephant stays put. Getting used to one's circumstances: SNAFU!

It (SNAFU) means that the situation is bad, but that this is a normal state of affairs. — Wikipedia